Seven years after BP’s Texas City blast, industry still fights transparency

Despite adopting new rules designed to reduce catastrophic accidents that can lead to the loss of lives, the energy industry continues to oppose transparency that could make operations safer. That was the theme of today’s discussion at a two-day public hearing by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board.

BP had previously paid $50.6 million in 2010 and $21.3 million in 2005 for earlier violations at the plant.

Despite the long list of fines, CSB members praised BP for the progress it’s made in implementing new safety procedures at the refinery and upgrades to the facility since the explosion.

New industry standards that were supposed to be adopted in the wake of the CSB’s investigation of that explosion are an improvement — “acceptable,” is the official designation — but they fall short in key areas that could greatly reduce the potential for disasters, the CSB found.

Much of today’s discussion involved the analysis of leading and lagging indicators of impending catastrophe. Leading indicators, of course, have the best chance of helping to identify a problem before it happens, but the industry hasn’t embraced any standardized method for tracking them, said Manuel Gomez, the CSB’s director of recommendations.

Leading indicators are used effectively to help reduce accidents in other parts of the world and often by companies who also operate in the U.S., CSB investigations superviser Don Holmstrom said.

So far, in adopting its new standards, the refining industry hasn’t said if the collection of such information would be made public.

The new standards were developed for the American Petroleum Institute by a panel dominated by management, Gomez said. It received little input from workers, regulators, environmental groups or scientists, Gomez noted.

CSB senior investigator Bill Hoyle noted that prior to the 2005 explosion BP had eight instances of volatile gases being released from the same unit where the blast began, yet under the new standards, such incidents wouldn’t have to be reported.

If the industry is serious about safety, then it will move for greater transparency and stricter requirements for reporting leading indicators that could help analyze and prevent future disasters. The industry has made a lot of progress, but it still has a long way to go when it comes to improving process safety.